QUESTION: Can you say which ones – which ones of the claims – or just to give us an example of the --

MS. PSAKI: Which ones of --

QUESTION: -- of the claims that the foreign minister made in the interview that you would regard as quote/unquote “ludicrous”?

MS. PSAKI: Well, one was certainly that the United States has anything to do with Ukraine’s counterterrorism operations, or that --

QUESTION: Or that you’re running the show? Is that the --

MS. PSAKI: Or that we’re running the show or funding it, exactly.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I would put those all in the ludicrous category.

So there you go, an unambiguous denial. Of course anyone is free to reject the answer, but they can't say a direct answer hasn't been given.

I think a good question for Russia Today (who uploaded the video and whose reporter is asking the question) would be: was it just a coincidence that their failure to report that the question had been asked and answered in a previous press conference ended up giving the impression that the question hadn't been answered at all, or did they misreport it on purpose?

Like I say, I'm no fan of Government spokespersons, but it's ironic when the people criticising are at it themselves. ;-)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Any time a government official fails to give a straight yes or no answer one can't accept their answer as being either regardless of how their answer might be taken if it were in a typical personal conversation.

This is one of the means of covering their tracks. If something were to happen or come to light and this interview was brought up to show what they had said regarding the matter there would be a quick refutation of what many believed the answer to be.

While such has been going on for a long time, the OBama administration has raised it to a much higher level so that even clear sounding answers or comments are later redefined to fit the new narrative.

Reporters and voters should press for straight forward yes or no answers and hold government officials accountable, whether for good or bad, to their answers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Reporters and voters should press for straight forward yes or no answers and hold government officials accountable, whether for good or bad, to their answers.

Not sure I agree, John. I think the answer just has to be straight and unambiguous. In fact I'd go further and say that any time someone issues the old please just answer yes or no preface, an unfair or loaded question will prOBably follow.

Most of the time someone wants another to answer just yes or no it is because they don't want them providing any of the background, context or specifics that would ruin the impression they are trying to paint with the question.

Take the "was it a coincidence" question for example. If Psaki had answered 'yes it was a coincidence', it would have appeared naive (or just a lie) because we all know these things are interrelated, i.e. there's no way the US visits would not have been a consideration at all when Ukraine decided to carry out the actions. If, on the other hand, Psaki had answered 'no it was not a coincidence', then it would have given the impression that the US was funding and or ordering the actions, given that Lavrov had recently made those accusations (even though that doesn't necessarily follow). The journalist knew this of course--I'm sure she worded the question as a snare on purpose.